|
Vulnerability NetApp Filer Affected NetApp Filer software versions 5.x Description Jason Downs found following. He was going through the documentation for version 5.2.1 (the latest) of the Network Appliance Filer operating system when he stumbled upon this little gem: "Use the disk_fw_update command to update out-of-date firmware on all disks or a specified disk on a filer. Each filer is shipped with a /etc/disk_fw directory that contains the latest firmware revisions." [...] "In the /etc/disk_fw directory, the firmware file name is in the form of product_ID.revision.LOD. For example, if the firmware file is for Seagate disks with product ID ST19171FC and the firmware revision is FB37, the file name is ST19171FC.FB37.LOD. The revision in the file name is the number against which the filer compares each disk's existing firmware revision." [...] "Before Data ONTAP 5.2, the disk_fw_update command copied firmware files from the /etc directory. In the /etc directory, the name for the firmware file was in the form of product_ID.LOD. The revision number was not included in the file name. Data ONTAP 5.2 continues to support firmware files in the /etc directory for backward compatibility. That is, if you obtain a disk firmware file and store it in the /etc directory, you can use the disk_fw_update command to copy that firmware file to disks, unless there is also a firmware file for the same product ID in the /etc/disk_fw directory. The files in the /etc/disk_fw directory take precedence over the files in the /etc directory." [...] Filer's typically have an "admin host" which can mount and read/write to the filer root directory. Without it, it's impossible to do any sort of system maintenance on the filer. If this host is compromised it's obviously bad news for the filer. But now, apparently new with the 5.x revisions of the filer operating system, a malicious individual can likely destroy the disk drive hardware itself. It is not known if any sort of sanity check is done on the contents of the firmware files; it's likely there is none, considering the type of code they contain. Of course, it is trivial to gain command line access to a filer once the admin host is compromised. They use what amounts to /etc/hosts.equiv for rsh access. It has always been important to make sure the "admin host" of a filer is secure. Now it seems Network Appliance has just raised the stakes; not only can you lose your data, but you can also potentially lose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hardware. Kragen Sitaker added following. His biggest concern with upgradable firmware is much more severe. If you can "upgrade" the firmware on the disk somebody boots their machine from, you can theoretically do unbelievably devilish things. You can insert arbitrary code into the OS kernel, for example, but only when you boot off that disk; if you boot off a floppy to check the disk with Tripwire or L5, you can give the unmodified kernel. Most disks have plenty of spare space on them -- reserved for remapping bad blocks -- and you would have plenty of space to store whatever malicious code you wanted. You could, for instance, insert nonstandard options into IP headers and use them as a covert channel to alert you of the existence and configuration of infected machines. You could send extra packets during times of heavy traffic. You could insert extra queries into DNS packets -- queries that would ultimately be forwarded to malicious DNS servers. Once you'd found infected machines, you could exert complete control over them. A particularly obnoxious possibility: you could insert "logic bombs" into the disk firmware that would activate only when certain (long and rather improbable, perhaps a few hundred bytes) were read from the disk. Then spam people with a .gif containing that sequence, along with steganographically-encoded machine code. They extract the .gif onto their disk, nicely aligned with the beginning of a sector, and load it up with Netscape. And if your breakin was spotted and the machine reinstalled from scratch, it wouldn't matter. The machine would still be compromised, and there would be no way to tell that it was compromised, since you can't check the firmware with L5. Solution Nothing yet. These feats would be technically difficult and narrowly applicable, requiring detailed knowledge of particular disk designs and operating systems. But the threat is much more severe than the mere threat of someone breaking into your machine and stealing or deleting your data. Firmware that is flashable without requiring inconvenient physical access are bad.